which he had been running the business of sale of construction material. Plaintiff's assertion is that after the death of Harnam Singh, he is running the business. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from taking forcible possession. In the written statement, defendant took the stand that in the year 1967 respondent No.2 was put into possession as Harnam Singh had failed to pay the money to the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice dated 23.11.1982 to Harnam Singh for payment of 12,313/and another notice dated 24.12.1985 for payment of 8,318/-. These notices were received by Harnam Singh. Despite these notices, Harnam Singh failed to deposit the amount of lease. Defendant No.1 filed an application to the Municipal Corporation on 24.8.1998 requesting that he is a sub-lettee and is in possession of the property since 1967 and he is ready to deposit the amount of lease standing against Harnam Singh as well as transfer fee. He was allowed to do so and he deposited the lease money with the Municipal Corporation, Patiala. Thereafter, the map for construction of the building was approved on 15.12.2009 and a composite fee of 12,750/- was deposited. An agreement for lease at the rate of 3050/- per year was executed and defendant No.1 is regularly paying the lease amount. Possession of the plaintiff was denied specifically.
